Lala Maha Visconti v. Internal Revenue Service

Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 23-0551 JGB (PVC) Date: April 27, 2023 Title Lala Maha Visconti v. Internal Revenue Service, et al.

Present: The Honorable Pedro V. Castillo, United States Magistrate Judge

Marlene Ramirez None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None None

PROCEEDINGS: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE SHOULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A CURRENT ADDRESS

On March 29, 2023, Lala Maha Visconti, a California resident proceeding pro se but not in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1). A summons issued that same day, (“Summons,” Dkt. No. 3), and on April 3, 2023, the Court issued a Notice of Assignment referring this matter for pre-trial proceedings to the above-named Magistrate Judge. (“Notice,” Dkt. No. 4). Both the Summons and the Notice were mailed to Plaintiff via the U.S. Postal Service at her current address of record.

On April 14, 2023, the Summons was returned to the Court as undeliverable due to an “insufficient address.” (Dkt. No. 5). On April 25, 2023, the Notice was likewise returned to the Court as undeliverable. (Dkt. No. 6). Thus, it appears that the Court does not have a current valid address for Plaintiff and is unable to move this case forward. CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 23-0551 JGB (PVC) Date: April 27, 2023 Title Lala Maha Visconti v. Internal Revenue Service, et al.

Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to the Central District’s Local Rule 41-6, she has an obligation to keep the Court informed of her current address of record or the Court may dismiss this action:

A party proceeding pro se must keep the Court and all other parties informed of the party’s current address as well as any telephone number and email address. If a Court order or other mail served on a pro se plaintiff at his address of record is returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable and the pro se party has not filed a notice of change of address within 14 days of the service date of the order or other Court document, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-6.

More than fourteen days have passed since the Summons and Notice issued, and Plaintiff has not provided the Court with an updated, accurate address where she may be reached. Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by May 11, 2023 why the Magistrate Judge should not recommend that this action be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 41-6 for Plaintiff’s failure to provide a current address. Plaintiff may discharge this Order by filing a response with a current address.

If Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue her claims, she may voluntarily dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A Notice of Dismissal form is attached for Plaintiff’s convenience. Plaintiff is not required to seek permission of the Court to dismiss her case because no Defendant has yet appeared or responded. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). However, Plaintiff is cautioned that any dismissed claims may be subject to a statute of limitations defense if Plaintiff seeks to reassert them in a later action. CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 23-0551 JGB (PVC) Date: April 27, 2023 Title Lala Maha Visconti v. Internal Revenue Service, et al.

Plaintiff is expressly warned that the failure to timely file a response to this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The Deputy Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff at her current address of record: Lala Maha Visconti, 7180 Helena Place, Fontana, CA 92336.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

00:00 Initials of Preparer mr